What a difference a few weeks makes.
Just over a month ago president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was castigating the Chinese government over its brutal crackdown on Tibetan protesters and then savaged Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) for comparing Taiwan to Tibet. One could reasonably believe that this party of pro-China ideologues that lost power in 2000 had turned over a new leaf.
But that was before the election. Now that the party has executive power safely back in its grasp and an undeservedly large legislative majority to boot, the true nature of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is once again beginning to seep through the cracks.
First there was KMT Legislator Liao Wan-ju (廖婉汝), who — following protests here — suggested that Tibetan supporters had been mobilized by the Ministry of National Defense’s Military Intelligence Bureau.
Then last week, when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus tried to push through a resolution in the legislature condemning the Chinese government for the crackdown, the KMT caucus decided to use its majority to back its own watered-down version which contributed little more than verbal fluff about “protecting human rights in Tibet.”
On Tuesday the party’s Taipei City councilors followed suit, postponing indefinitely a debate on establishing March 10 as “Tibet Day” which would have been a mark of respect following the violence.
What a pity that the majority of KMT members don’t share Ma’s apparently progressive views and are instead willing to bend over backwards to placate Beijing’s bullies.
But one must not forget that the KMT was and is organizationally Leninist, made up of autocrats, many of whom have more in common with the thugs in Zhongnanhai than the peace-loving Buddhists of Tibet. Indeed, many of them only got where they are today by clinging to the coattails of a dictator, so it should not be surprising when they come down on the side of the Chinese.
Unfortunately, the actions of the party’s councilors and, more importantly, its legislators, is more evidence — if any was needed following Ma’s woefully inadequate stint as party chairman — that the party’s main vote-winner is a breed apart from most party members.
Some people who voted for Ma on his message of change are likely to be in for a shock as KMT legislators demonstrate their brazen disregard for public opinion and begin to push pork-barrel bills that they simply couldn’t have gotten away with in previous legislatures.
In fact, this has already begun.
A couple of weeks ago the legislature began review of amendments proposed by KMT legislators Yang Chiung-ying (楊瓊瓔), Chu Fong-chi (朱鳳芝) and Ting Shou-chung (丁守中) that will double the benefits given to traditionally pro-KMT village and borough chiefs nationwide, all at the taxpayers’ expense.
And then there are the proposed amendments to the Statute Governing Reconstruction of Old Military Dependents’ Villages (國軍老舊眷村改建條例) that will benefit the families of KMT military veterans to the tune of around NT$1.32 trillion (US$40.6 billion) if (or should one say when) it passes.
Is this the kind of government for “all the people” that those who voted for Ma expected?
The KMT’s Jekyll and Hyde attitude to the Tibetan issue, as unimportant as it may be to many Taiwanese, is a taste of what is to come as the new president struggles to curb the excesses of a legislature intoxicated with its own power.
Ma will need every ounce of strength he has if he is to tame the dragon and achieve half of what he promised.
We wish him luck.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs